Step Back Fiat, We Got This.
So Mastercard had an outage, so the CryptoVerse beat it down with tweets to make sure it knew what’s up.
After reading so many bash pieces on Elon Musk, it was a welcomed break to read something fun.
Mastercard had a severe outage last week, that piled up to many people being unable to use their cards. Visa had a draw back not long ago, and crypto-internet wouldn’t let the world forget it.
The Financial Times reported that it had a ‘global impact’, creating outrage and frustration from around the globe over this glitch. Customers took to twitter to complain to the credit card giant, which did eventually resolve the issue and service resumed for their customers.
End of story.
Well, not for Crypto Twitter, which took this time and pleasure to give Mastercard and their press team the social media headache of the decade.
100’s of comments poured in with some of the most delightful and hilarious tweets.
Oh crypto twitter.
But this public bashing did bring the very nature of blockchain technology and finance into light. If Mastercard adopts with their own private blockchain without the pressmissionless public blockchain, they could very well make a system similar to cryptocurrency. But without the insecurity.
I’m excited to see how the financial world changes alongside cryptocurrency.
The future is near?
Buterin has apparently been courted by Google according to his Twitter feed. He initially shared the Tweet but then deleted it. This makes sense that Google would want to recruit him for their own secret crypto project. Since Buterin is considered an expert in blockchain and Google wants to make its own cryptocurrency the fit may be a good one, but at what cost?
Many see Vitalik as a champion of the cryptocurrency revolution against big banks and big business. If he were to work with Google there are fears Ethereum may fall in value or that Buterin may try to harm or sabotage ETH in some way, similar to what some fear Ripple may do with XRP. Essentially Google would control ETH by proxy just as banks control XRP through partnerships. The commonality is that Google would view ETH as a rival to its own currency and banks only see value in Ripple’s network to settle payments without needing or using XRP. Google and Vitalik bv proxy may then have reason to kill off Ethereum in favour of Google’s project.
This is very interesting and about high time. There is hardly any legal basis to single out the banning of cryptocurrency and ICOs when so many other questionable things are promoted on Google, Facebook and Twitter. They could have probably gotten away with banning a few confirmed scam coins or ICOs but they’d also have to demonstrate similar action in other industries that they have never done with this.
The allegation of collusion is important and I am very curious how this plays out. My suspicion is that these actions are voluntary. The CEOs of these companies were essentially convinced and paid out to it by stakeholders of fiat and traditional securities. If not that, here would be an interesting defense if they could make such a defense legally in this scenario I propose. Of course all 3 of the major companies are based in the US and are subject to the laws of the US including being obliged to co-operate by providing the NSA backdoors for spying. What if under the pretext of national security these companies were forced to ban cryptocurrency advertising? It may sound far fetched but the US government even wanted to put tariffs on Canada during negotiations for NAFTA under the pre-text of National Security.
It is hard to say for sure what the truth is but I’ll be following these lawsuits as some of the truth may come out in the reply to the claim, discovery and other filings. One thing I am sure of is that neither company came up with the idea of their own volition. It would be another thing to prove which external force or entity is really responsible for this. Financially it makes little sense since they all stood to profit more from the increased advertising revenue so it is very plausible that some other stakeholders made an offer they couldn’t refuse whether in the form of enticement or being obliged by law (even if falsely under the pre-text of national security).